Reply #: Kucinich is neither the most "viable" nor the most "liberal"

[tameszu]

A truly "liberal" candidate would not pledge to end the WTO. He or she would rather pledge to use the U.S.' economic and political clout (that is, whatever it hasn't dissipated in the idiotic actions of the past 2 years) to spearhead its progressive reform.

Do you think 3rd world countries really want the U.S. and other wealthy countries to give in completely to their farm and labor sectors' protectionist desires? No--these countries want fair trade (or some kind of open trade) and fair access to American textile and agricultural markets. Debt relief would of course be a very good thing too.

Also, it seems to me that the most "liberal" candidate would have a better record regarding abortion and free speech.

And don't even start about "viability"...

This isn't to say that I don't think DK's contribution in running isn't a good thing. It's good that he's speaking out against BushCo's lies in a forceful manner and pushing hard for a number of strongly progressive positions. I just wonder, when I read comments like yours, whether it mis doing more good or harm in promoting progressive change in the U.S., due to the divisive nature of flirting with "Green-ism" (which I sometimes think is more about being "radical" than "progressive" or "liberal").